KEDARNATH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR- (Case Commentary)

 INTRODUCTION

This case was decided by the Supreme Court bench constituting of Hon’ble justice Mr. S.K Das, Hon’ble justice Mr. Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, Hon’ble justice Mr. A.K Sarkar, Hon’ble justice Mr. Rajagopal Ayyangar, and  Hon’ble justice Mr. J.R Madholkar.

The shouting of anti-national slogans at JNU by the students and the arrest of Kanhiya Kumar under charges for sedition has also put a lot of questions on the sedition law in India.

This case is based on the sedition law that has been described under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter to be referred to as IPC). Sedition is recognized as a crime against the state and the society. It includes all those words either spoken or written which disturbs the composure of the government or the laws of the state with an intention to create disorder or rebel among the people of the state. As per to section 124A of IPC- any person who with the use of words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by noticeable illustration, brings or tries to bring into hatred or disrespect, or motivates or tries to motivate “disaffection” towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be penalized with imprisonment for life, or even with fine or with imprisonment extending to 3 years to which fine could be added, or with fine. 

In this case section 505 of IPC has also been raised. This section relates to statements conducting to public mischief. This section states that -

1. whosoever makes use of any kind of words (spoken or written)by publishing them or circulating them with an intention to cause mutiny among the soldiers, navy officers or any other  officers of the state, or to cause rebel among the people of the society to go against the state, or to provoke any particular community to go against any other community, shall be penalized with imprisonment of 3 years or with fine or with both.
2. Whoever promotes or publishes any kind of rumours on the ground of religion, language, birth place, etc. With an intention to create antagonism shall be punished with 3 years of imprisonment or fine or both.
3. The offense under subsection (2) which is committed in the performance of religious practices or ceremonies shall be punishable with an imprisonment of 5 years or fine or both. 

In a case in 1962 the Supreme Court was made to answer as to the legality of section 124A of IPC as it was termed to be against the newly created fundamental right to speech as per Article19 of the Indian constitution. The first case that challenged the sedition law was Queen-Empress vs Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors.[1]  In Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2]It was held that the sedition law under section 124A violates the freedom of speech that has been granted to the citizens by the Indian constitution and so section 124A was declared ultra vires. However, this judgment was overruled in the case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of bihar[3] and the section was held to be intra vires of the constitutional foundation. 

 BACKGROUND

In the case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar the appellant, who is said to be the member of a forward communist party, was convicted under section 124A and 505 of IPC for delivering a seditious speech in a public gathering. He was prosecuted for the charges by the magistrate of first class. He was accused of calling the parliamentarians as “dogs” and referring to the congress people as “goondas” many times during his speech with an intention to disrupt public peace and create tranquillity. He also said that the mission of the congress leaders is to loot India and spread poverty in the country. 

Kedarnath Singh appealed in the high court of Patna against the charges forced on him which was heard by late Mr. Justice Naqui Imam. However, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld by the court because the speech was seditious and was a disparagement of the Government, and both the sections has been made out.

Further, the appeal was filled in the Supreme Court where the appellant challenged the constitutionality of section 124A and 505 of IPC concerning article 19 of the constitution that guarantees right to speech and expression to all the citizens of the country. 

Issues 

- Whether section 124A and 505 of IPC are ultra vires in nature with respect to article 19(1)(a) of the constitution

- Whether the offense of sedition requires provocation to violence or intention to create disorder or disturbance of law

DECISION OF THE COURT

In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal and the accused was acquitted as the speech was found to be not seditious .section 124A was enunciated as intra vires with respect to article 19(2) of the constitution. It was clarified that merely the use of strong words in order to criticize the government or polices or measures of the government without generating any inclination in public order cannot be termed as sedition. It also stated that the application of this sections of IPC shall be restricted to the acts involving intentions to create violence or disturb public order or harmony.

 ANALYSIS 

The decision of the Supreme Court is right and valid. The court through its decision made it very clear that even if there are certain rights granted to the citizens but these rights, including the right to speech, are subject to certain restrictions and the court has rightly restricted these to the acts which have an intention of inciting any violence or disturbing public order. If section 124A was used arbitrarily then it would restrict the freedom of speech and expression that has been granted to the citizens by the constitution. The citizens have a right to speak or write in order to criticize the government or its measures until and unless such criticism does not lead to any kind of violence among the people or provokes them to go against the government. Thus, incitement to violence or the tendency or the intention to create public disorder “is an important factor in determining whether a statement is seditious or not. As it can also be seen in this case that Mr. Kedarnath's speech did include certain words that were inappropriate but there was no intention on his part to provoke any kind of violence among the people. So in my opinion the decision of the court to acquit the appellant and restricting the scope of section 124A was indeed valid and correct. 

CONCLUSION

The case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar is a landmark case where a landmark judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court. Through its decision, the Supreme Court made it very clear that disloyalty towards the government is different from criticizing the polices or the working of the government. The question raised on the constitutionality of the sedition law was upheld by the court and limited its application to acts involving any kind of intention to create violence or disturb public order. The court rejected the literal interpretation of sedition law because if section 124A was given a wider perspective than it would not survive the test of constitutionality. However, there are still certain courts and judges who file charges of sedition on various media channels, journalist, human activist, politicians, etc.

Thus the case held that any kind of speech either oral or written, against the working of the government without the intention to incite violence among the people cannot be termed as sedition and the person cannot be penalized under section 124A of IPC.

 

[1] Queen-Empress vs Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors. (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35

[2] Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 Alld. 101

[3] Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955

- Akanksha Mishra

Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies.